I’ll chime in with my thoughts, despite it not being my essay lol. Thanks these thoughtful counterpoints, I hope you’ll find my own interesting!
In regards to the intention of separation, I think parsing the difference between “keeping in touch with your roots” and maintaining a distinct, differentiated identity from others is a lot more …
I’ll chime in with my thoughts, despite it not being my essay lol. Thanks these thoughtful counterpoints, I hope you’ll find my own interesting!
In regards to the intention of separation, I think parsing the difference between “keeping in touch with your roots” and maintaining a distinct, differentiated identity from others is a lot more similar than different. You see the same sweet-sounding rhetoric applied to Black History Month and even the invention of Kwanzaa, but at the core, the goal is the same as the outcome: maintaining clear distinctions between in-group and out-group. This is directly at odds with the American ideal, where our collective identities become less important than our individual character and our ability to cooperate. A little too much “getting in touch with your roots” is also what leads to ideologies like black and white nationalism, by which maintaining identity becomes all important.
It’s my belief that collective identities aren’t important enough to warrant intentional reaffirming vs free engagement with them and naturally, the loss of elements that aren’t useful to people anymore. Attempting to reinforce them serves the group at the expense of the individual’s flourishing. That was exactly my experience in leftist spaces that encouraged me to see myself primarily by group identities vs as an individual.
And in regards to the Maccabees, I think the point Jake was making wasn’t that we should hold past figures to the standards of today (as both of us disagree with that for the reasons you correctly apply to the Founding Fathers), but that we also shouldn’t celebrate their failures. It’s one thing to recognize the specific good acts taken by the Maccabees, it’s another thing to celebrate the specific acts of brutality—as exemplified in the essay by the quotes from Avi Moaz and Josh Hammer—which would be more akin to embracing the failures of the Founders (slavery, limitation of rights to women, etc). None of the historical figures you mentioned (Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Ramses the Great II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar) are celebrated today for their brutality.
I agree with you that at least offering a more historically accurate and neutral overview of the Maccabees would be an improvement; then people would have a better chance to develop their own views.
At the end of the day, collective identities have sown so much division and bloodshed throughout history. As an individualist and humanist, I think that whenever we can reassess our collective affiliations and improve them (often by letting go of the more divisive aspects), we allow for growth and unity. It’s one of the more beautiful achievements the US has strived for!
I’ll chime in with my thoughts, despite it not being my essay lol. Thanks these thoughtful counterpoints, I hope you’ll find my own interesting!
In regards to the intention of separation, I think parsing the difference between “keeping in touch with your roots” and maintaining a distinct, differentiated identity from others is a lot more similar than different. You see the same sweet-sounding rhetoric applied to Black History Month and even the invention of Kwanzaa, but at the core, the goal is the same as the outcome: maintaining clear distinctions between in-group and out-group. This is directly at odds with the American ideal, where our collective identities become less important than our individual character and our ability to cooperate. A little too much “getting in touch with your roots” is also what leads to ideologies like black and white nationalism, by which maintaining identity becomes all important.
It’s my belief that collective identities aren’t important enough to warrant intentional reaffirming vs free engagement with them and naturally, the loss of elements that aren’t useful to people anymore. Attempting to reinforce them serves the group at the expense of the individual’s flourishing. That was exactly my experience in leftist spaces that encouraged me to see myself primarily by group identities vs as an individual.
And in regards to the Maccabees, I think the point Jake was making wasn’t that we should hold past figures to the standards of today (as both of us disagree with that for the reasons you correctly apply to the Founding Fathers), but that we also shouldn’t celebrate their failures. It’s one thing to recognize the specific good acts taken by the Maccabees, it’s another thing to celebrate the specific acts of brutality—as exemplified in the essay by the quotes from Avi Moaz and Josh Hammer—which would be more akin to embracing the failures of the Founders (slavery, limitation of rights to women, etc). None of the historical figures you mentioned (Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Ramses the Great II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar) are celebrated today for their brutality.
I agree with you that at least offering a more historically accurate and neutral overview of the Maccabees would be an improvement; then people would have a better chance to develop their own views.
At the end of the day, collective identities have sown so much division and bloodshed throughout history. As an individualist and humanist, I think that whenever we can reassess our collective affiliations and improve them (often by letting go of the more divisive aspects), we allow for growth and unity. It’s one of the more beautiful achievements the US has strived for!